Nikon had a compelling reason to offer it. Their pro series DSLR's were crop cameras, and so were the lenses. Photographers with a ton of money invested in pro grade lenses wanted to be able to use them when Nikon went to FF. The crop mode is offered for those who bought those expensive DX lenses.

Canon did not sell DX lenses for their Pro series cameras, just FF lenses. When the Rebel Series came out, Canon offered EF-S lenses as a low cost option for a Standard Zoom and wide zoom. They will not physically fir on a FF body. So why would Canon crop a image for lenses that would not fit??

If you just want a cropped image, its a trivial thing, it can be done automatically as you import into photoshop, and, if you decide to change the crop a little, you can.

Except that the UWA EF-S lenses outperform similarly priced UWA FF lenses in the crop area. For those who have invested in a crop body with a couple of lenses (especially hobbyists) allowing FF bodies to take EF-S lenses gives them options. Unless Canon thinks that the users are too naiive to see the EF-S Vignette on FF sensor and complain about it.

But, they Do not fit on a FF, they hit the mirror and cannot be mounted for that purpose. Why have a crop mode for lenses that cannot be mounted?

As far as 3rd party lenses that will mount, I do not see Canon doing anything to support or encourage buyers of the competition.

I shoot 1D4 bodies and will miss the x1.3 crop of the APS-H sensor. It's going to COST me. My 300 f/2.8 will lose an effective 90mm on the FF 1DX bodies which I have on pre-order.

The pricey required solution is a new 400 f/2.8II. I like APS-H.

Paul Wright

I hear you... I may be out of touch with 1DX rumors here, so is it confirmed that "H" is going away? Interestingly enough, if the 1dx is a 27mp FF then it will equal the pixel density of the 1D4 and you can crop the FF images in post to mimic the 1.3x crop and still get 16mp "on the bird".

I did some back of the envelope math...and I'm not buying the cost of sensor reasoning.

If Canon is using a 300mm wafer, they will get roughly 80 sensor dies at full frame and 215 sensors at APC-C. (Don't shoot me here, I didn't account for edges, targets, etc. I just divided the area of the wafer by the sensor area). If yields drop for the FF (yields decline more for larger die) and the yield works out to even 4 to 1, then you get about 50 FF and 200 Crop sensors per wafer. If you account for pixel density I would expect the yields to even out (smaller feature sizes would see lower yields). So I think I am being somewhat biased in favor of crops here.

How much does a sensor cost? Even Intel Microprocessors (far more complex to manufacture) would cost at most 100 bucks to make. A minimum feature size of 1 micron is very crude by today's standards. Chips like that might cost a dollar or less to make. The pixel size on a 50D is a little under 5 microns.

So, given the cost of manufacture of a camera, I think the sensor itself is a minor percentage. My guess is that the full frame jacks up the cost of the camera because of the other components, or because of the complexity of assembling the larger parts in essentially the same package.

If you're trying to make sense of prices using a pricing model along the lines of Retail Price = Manufacturing Cost * Markup (or total production cost including amortized R&D, if you like), it won't necessarily make sense. The price is ultimately determined by supply and demand. There is markup because Canon (or any other company) will try to avoid releasing a product that doesn't enable them to make money, and competition between manufacturers constrains the amount of markup but while it's constrained, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will be a fixed multiplier.

I shoot 1D4 bodies and will miss the x1.3 crop of the APS-H sensor. It's going to COST me. My 300 f/2.8 will lose an effective 90mm on the FF 1DX bodies which I have on pre-order.

The pricey required solution is a new 400 f/2.8II. I like APS-H.

Paul Wright

I hear you... I may be out of touch with 1DX rumors here, so is it confirmed that "H" is going away? Interestingly enough, if the 1dx is a 27mp FF then it will equal the pixel density of the 1D4 and you can crop the FF images in post to mimic the 1.3x crop and still get 16mp "on the bird".

its confirmed I am out of touch. my apologies I could have looked that one up to learn that the 1Dx is 18.1mp. cropping to 1.3x would result in about 10.1 mp "on the bird", or about what the 40D does.

Its clear that Canon is really reluctant to push the pixel density on these FF bodies. just look at the whopping difference in pixel density between the 18mp 1DX and the 18mp 7D!

yes, what I mean here is that the consequences of pixel density do come into play at normal ISO speeds at the same FOV when pixel peeping. This is evidenced by the fact that a 5D image, when cropped to 1.6x, is a lot closer in actual, realizable IQ to the 7D native image than the pixel calculations would imply. So overall system resolution (I should have used the term IQ instead of resolution) is not just about pixel count. I do think it is astonishing that an 8mp (cropped) image from the 5D3 compares very well with the native 18mp image from the 7D. I wish I had the reference (sorry) but in another thread this topic was discussed, and examples posted showing this.

If you look at the better test carried out by Romy, the 7D actually showed noticeably better detail than the 5D2 when distance limited. One guy's test didn't show as much difference, but his results were the outlier.

yes, what I mean here is that the consequences of pixel density do come into play at normal ISO speeds at the same FOV when pixel peeping. This is evidenced by the fact that a 5D image, when cropped to 1.6x, is a lot closer in actual, realizable IQ to the 7D native image than the pixel calculations would imply. So overall system resolution (I should have used the term IQ instead of resolution) is not just about pixel count. I do think it is astonishing that an 8mp (cropped) image from the 5D3 compares very well with the native 18mp image from the 7D. I wish I had the reference (sorry) but in another thread this topic was discussed, and examples posted showing this.

If you look at the better test carried out by Romy, the 7D actually showed noticeably better detail than the 5D2 when distance limited. One guy's test didn't show as much difference, but his results were the outlier.

thanks that is good to know. now I'm even more anxious to know what the next gen crop bodies will be like. perhaps more astonishing to me is that the 5D3 pixel density is approximately the same as the 40D. Clearly, Canon is reluctant to push the pixel density on the FF sensors, but have no such reluctance to do so for the crop bodies. and now, assuming the H crops are going away, Canon may push more IQ technology towards an upper end 1.6x crop. at least one can hope, which is (last I checked) what this site encourages lol

I could be wrong but in terms of cropping a FF sensor, patents may be involved. Nikon is doing it with its FF sensor, but again I believe patents may be involved here.

That would be the height of absurd patents. How in the world can you patent cropping?? (then again some patents are pretty absurd, but still, this would really take the cake)

I know! But I have done some patents in the past and cropping on a FF (or some aspect of it) is definitively somthing someone could try to patent, at least to make it more difficult for a competitor to replicate (allbeit not impossible!).

I could be wrong but in terms of cropping a FF sensor, patents may be involved. Nikon is doing it with its FF sensor, but again I believe patents may be involved here.

That would be the height of absurd patents. How in the world can you patent cropping?? (then again some patents are pretty absurd, but still, this would really take the cake)

I know! But I have done some patents in the past and cropping on a FF (or some aspect of it) is definitively somthing someone could try to patent, at least to make it more difficult for a competitor to replicate (allbeit not impossible!).

the "art" would be the in-camera implementation, file size management, etc. . I could see a technology patent possibility here... for example a viewfinder that would track the crop selection accurately. Of course, if it were Apple we would see patent application for the shape of the camera body, the right index finger shutter button location, the location of the tripod mount, and the fact that a lens can have a rotating focus ring.

Logged

markIVantony

The cool thing is (depending on your perspective), any ideas mentioned here automatically become "prior art", so no one else can get a patent on it after the fact! Of course the idea can still be implemented by a large company, but they can't get the idea patented. We do this frequently - decide the idea isn't worth the time/money to perform a full art search, but at the same time, don't want anyone else to make money from it by patenting it themselves.

Why can't the crop guys and FF guys just get along ? Crop sensors allow manufacturers to sell entry-level DSLR's packed with megapixels and all kinds of bells and whistles for a fraction of the cost of FF bodies. Then users get hooked, and drop loads of cash on lenses and accessories. Then users are committed to a system/brand, and continue to buy equipment within that system. Considering that you can get astoundingly good results with a crop body, and many crop consumers aren't even aware how big (or small) the sensors are in their cameras, why would crop sensors ever go away?

Logged

briansquibb

Why can't the crop guys and FF guys just get along ? Crop sensors allow manufacturers to sell entry-level DSLR's packed with megapixels and all kinds of bells and whistles for a fraction of the cost of FF bodies. Then users get hooked, and drop loads of cash on lenses and accessories. Then users are committed to a system/brand, and continue to buy equipment within that system. Considering that you can get astoundingly good results with a crop body, and many crop consumers aren't even aware how big (or small) the sensors are in their cameras, why would crop sensors ever go away?

The ff guys talk about IQThe crop guys talk about reachThe APS-H guys get it in the neck from both

The ff guys talk about IQThe crop guys talk about reachThe APS-H guys get it in the neck from both

I like me a good APS-H body! I hope the used 1D4 market takes a dump once the 1Dx comes out. Too bad Canon got rid of the 1.3:1 sensor. It really is a great compromise between the APS-C and FF extremes.

The ff guys talk about IQThe crop guys talk about reachThe APS-H guys get it in the neck from both

I like me a good APS-H body! I hope the used 1D4 market takes a dump once the 1Dx comes out. Too bad Canon got rid of the 1.3:1 sensor. It really is a great compromise between the APS-C and FF extremes.

I'm right there with you. I'd love to trade my 7D for a 1D4 and a some cash. Right now, it's just too much cash, i think about @2500-3000 for the buy and sell on eBay. $1500 and I'd do it. But I don't see it happening. The 1D4 is too good and the 1DX too expensive.

The ff guys talk about IQThe crop guys talk about reachThe APS-H guys get it in the neck from both

I like me a good APS-H body! I hope the used 1D4 market takes a dump once the 1Dx comes out. Too bad Canon got rid of the 1.3:1 sensor. It really is a great compromise between the APS-C and FF extremes.

I'm on the APS-H wagon too... we must be masichists

personally I think a good crop complements a FF very nicelyI just have not been overly thrilled with the 7D sensor when i looked at getting one I decided i'd rather stay with the APS-H.I am waiting with interest to see what they decide to do with the 7DII if it eventuates or if they kill it off

In a related note, I must've missed the white paper on AF-S lenses and why Canon bothered with making the short back focus things at all. I don't see any technical advantage; you get more incident angle of light on the sensor corners resulting in a bit more falloff (w-o adjusting microlenses on the sensor) and it's only slightly less likely to image dust sitting on the AA filter than the longer back focus distance from an EF lens. Would make more sense to leave the same back focus distance as an EF lens and just position the AA filter a little farther from the sensor to reduce dust imaging. Then microlens positioning would also not have to be a compromise if all lenses used similar back focus distance... ignoring rear group focusing changing that anyway. Can anyone enlighten me on this aspect of the design decision? was it just to prevent the N-crowd from adapting Canon glass to their bodies w-o requiring an in-between optic?